Benefits of Brexit

[alfie2244]

///ajd said:

I don't know if you are able to read the article - or whether your prejudice prevents you from even opening the link - but it does give good examples of our "super efficient government immigration department" threatening to deport two individuals who appear to have good jobs and who are contributing to our GDP.

If you don't want to read about the "benefits of brexit" - read elsewhere. You guys put the record on. Discuss it properly, just throwing insults and telling people to shut up suggests weakness and fear.

b b b but whatabout this from her very own mouth yet you still insist she was threatened with deportation. I did read the link for my ssns and this is what it said "The software engineer, from Surrey, said she never once thought she would be deported" you continually, deliberately ignore things that don't suit your agenda, or make them up, yet you say you wish to "discuss it properly." and wonder why people insult you.

[sidicks]

///ajd said:

I don't know if you are able to read the article - or whether your prejudice prevents you from even opening the link - but it does give good examples of our "super efficient government immigration department" threatening to deport two individuals who appear to have good jobs and who are contributing to our GDP.

If you don't want to read about the "benefits of brexit" - read elsewhere. You guys put the record on. Discuss it properly, just throwing insults and telling people to shut up suggests weakness and fear.

Priceless!

Edited by sidicks on Saturday 8th April 16:20

[Murph7355]

I'll start to answer my own question as the shape of that chart intrigued me.

First thing I thought worth looking at was the size of the companies going bust. I couldn't find much info in the time I'm able to give it just now, but the first link I had showed retail company info;

http://www.retailresearch.org/whosegonebust.php

More firms going down in 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2009 and 2008. More employees impacted in 3 of those years.

Maybe more interestingly, extend the timeline of your chart to its max:


I wonder if we'll beat 1992, and what happened in 1992

I think at best we'd have to say that proving causation to Brexit is difficult. Realistically I'd say it's impossible without much more granular data...and even then there is unlikely to be a single extinction event.

[sidicks]

alfie2244 said:

b b b but whatabout this from her very own mouth yet you still insist she was threatened with deportation. I did read the link for my ssns and this is what it said "The software engineer, from Surrey, said she never once thought she would be deported" you continually, deliberately ignore things that don't suit your agenda, or make them up, yet you say you wish to "discuss it properly." and wonder why people insult you.

[Rich_W]

Murph7355 said:

I'll start to answer my own question as the shape of that chart intrigued me.

First thing I thought worth looking at was the size of the companies going bust. I couldn't find much info in the time I'm able to give it just now, but the first link I had showed retail company info;

http://www.retailresearch.org/whosegonebust.php

More firms going down in 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2009 and 2008. More employees impacted in 3 of those years.

Maybe more interestingly, extend the timeline of your chart to its max:


I wonder if we'll beat 1992, and what happened in 1992

I think at best we'd have to say that proving causation to Brexit is difficult. Realistically I'd say it's impossible without much more granular data...and even then there is unlikely to be a single extinction event.

RE; the Graph.

it's always been a fact that companies go bust. But I wonder if its because people are taking accepting bigger risks with their ventures. I.e choose a business that actually has potential, rather than a pipe dream, being egged on by friends and family with no real business acumen

And lenders not really caring if they succeed or not. Modern high streets are no where near as busy as they once were and obviously recent rate hikes haven't helped.

[jjlynn27]

Murph7355 said:

KrissKross said:

jjlynn27 said:

But who needs ONS data when you have 'a lot of our experiences', eh?

So you are suggesting that graph is Engineering/Tech companies going bust?

More importantly, does the chart demonstrate causation with the referendum outcome?

Doubt that anyone was claiming that, it was an answer to the post how everything is booming atm. It's, quite clearly, total bs.

My experience is that some companies are doing well, some just about plodding along, some going bust. The graph is showing a huge increase in companies going bust.

[jjlynn27]

Murph7355 said:

I'll start to answer my own question as the shape of that chart intrigued me.

First thing I thought worth looking at was the size of the companies going bust. I couldn't find much info in the time I'm able to give it just now, but the first link I had showed retail company info;

http://www.retailresearch.org/whosegonebust.php

More firms going down in 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2009 and 2008. More employees impacted in 3 of those years.

Maybe more interestingly, extend the timeline of your chart to its max:


I wonder if we'll beat 1992, and what happened in 1992

I think at best we'd have to say that proving causation to Brexit is difficult. Realistically I'd say it's impossible without much more granular data...and even then there is unlikely to be a single extinction event.

Ok

Not sure how going to 1992 is relevant but I'm sure it is. Maybe just get data for companies producing screws. Maybe they'll show a different trend.
I've picked aggregate data for all companies and 3year term to give an overview.
One question; any other event that you might think has the same influence on data as Brexit? I'd love to know which one if there is one.

[cymtriks]

One of the benefits might be a long overdue reform of our education system.

I always find it incomprehensible that on one hand we are told how great our education system is while at the same time extolling immigration as an essential cure for it not producing what we need.

If we really are dependent on immigration for doctors, engineers and scientists then our education system has spectacularly failed. If our education system really is the greatest ever and standards higher than ever then why do we need to import critical skills?

As a nation we need to face reality on this issue very quickly.

[sidicks]

cymtriks said:

One of the benefits might be a long overdue reform of our education system.

I always find it incomprehensible that on one hand we are told how great our education system is while at the same time extolling immigration as an essential cure for it not producing what we need.

If we really are dependent on immigration for doctors, engineers and scientists then our education system has spectacularly failed. If our education system really is the greatest ever and standards higher than ever then why do we need to import critical skills?

As a nation we need to face reality on this issue very quickly.

[///ajd]

alfie2244 said:

///ajd said:

I don't know if you are able to read the article - or whether your prejudice prevents you from even opening the link - but it does give good examples of our "super efficient government immigration department" threatening to deport two individuals who appear to have good jobs and who are contributing to our GDP.

If you don't want to read about the "benefits of brexit" - read elsewhere. You guys put the record on. Discuss it properly, just throwing insults and telling people to shut up suggests weakness and fear.

b b b but whatabout this from her very own mouth yet you still insist she was threatened with deportation. I did read the link for my ssns and this is what it said "The software engineer, from Surrey, said she never once thought she would be deported" you continually, deliberately ignore things that don't suit your agenda, or make them up, yet you say you wish to "discuss it properly." and wonder why people insult you.

She said she never expected to be deported, but at the time of the article her application had been rejected.

You appear to be struggling with the tense at play here - "I never expected to be deported...but my application was rejected" - that is why it was shocking and stressful - she ever expected to be treated like this.

The issue was sorted out, but only after it made the National press.

The original point (if you follow the thread up) was that being a foreigner here is not very easy, and will likely get harder. Subjecting people to 85 page application forms that make life very stressful and difficult is not consistent with welcoming the brightest to come and life and work here. I would have thought that was obvious from the article.

The prejudice against the Guardian in the posts above is self evident - that isn't an insult, its a comment on self declared prejudice against the Guardian. Pointing out a fact is not an insult, no matter how much you might want it to be to offset your own insults.

[///ajd]

Murph7355 said:

I'll start to answer my own question as the shape of that chart intrigued me.

First thing I thought worth looking at was the size of the companies going bust. I couldn't find much info in the time I'm able to give it just now, but the first link I had showed retail company info;

http://www.retailresearch.org/whosegonebust.php

More firms going down in 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2009 and 2008. More employees impacted in 3 of those years.

Maybe more interestingly, extend the timeline of your chart to its max:


I wonder if we'll beat 1992, and what happened in 1992

I think at best we'd have to say that proving causation to Brexit is difficult. Realistically I'd say it's impossible without much more granular data...and even then there is unlikely to be a single extinction event.

So, going by the graph, Brexit is having a worse impact on businesses going under than during the 2008 GFC? Just great.

I assume most would concur there was causation against the GFC and the spike in 2008.

[alfie2244]

///ajd said:

Bong bong bong

You keep banging that drum oh wise one.

[johnxjsc1985]

alfie2244 said:

You keep banging that drum oh wise one.

everyone needs a hobbie his is just to annoy people.

[wc98]

///ajd said:

Murph7355 said:

I'll start to answer my own question as the shape of that chart intrigued me.

First thing I thought worth looking at was the size of the companies going bust. I couldn't find much info in the time I'm able to give it just now, but the first link I had showed retail company info;

http://www.retailresearch.org/whosegonebust.php

More firms going down in 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2009 and 2008. More employees impacted in 3 of those years.

Maybe more interestingly, extend the timeline of your chart to its max:


I wonder if we'll beat 1992, and what happened in 1992

I think at best we'd have to say that proving causation to Brexit is difficult. Realistically I'd say it's impossible without much more granular data...and even then there is unlikely to be a single extinction event.

So, going by the graph, Brexit is having a worse impact on businesses going under than during the 2008 GFC? Just great.

I assume most would concur there was causation against the GFC and the spike in 2008.

to be fair the chart suggests bankruptcies began to increase significantly after the 1975 referendum on remaining in the common market

[wc98]

///ajd said:

She said she never expected to be deported, but at the time of the article her application had been rejected.

You appear to be struggling with the tense at play here - "I never expected to be deported...but my application was rejected" - that is why it was shocking and stressful - she ever expected to be treated like this.

The issue was sorted out, but only after it made the National press.

The original point (if you follow the thread up) was that being a foreigner here is not very easy, and will likely get harder. Subjecting people to 85 page application forms that make life very stressful and difficult is not consistent with welcoming the brightest to come and life and work here. I would have thought that was obvious from the article.

The prejudice against the Guardian in the posts above is self evident - that isn't an insult, its a comment on self declared prejudice against the Guardian. Pointing out a fact is not an insult, no matter how much you might want it to be to offset your own insults.

that article is the perfect example of how incompetent the bureaucratic machine in the uk is,it says nothing of how people born outside the uk will be treated post brexit.
i have a lot of sympathy for the woman after dealing with several government departments on behalf of my mother in law last year. i am fairly certain if i ever end up in jail it will be down having to deal with one incompetent bureaucrat too many.

[///ajd]

wc98 said:

///ajd said:

She said she never expected to be deported, but at the time of the article her application had been rejected.

You appear to be struggling with the tense at play here - "I never expected to be deported...but my application was rejected" - that is why it was shocking and stressful - she ever expected to be treated like this.

The issue was sorted out, but only after it made the National press.

The original point (if you follow the thread up) was that being a foreigner here is not very easy, and will likely get harder. Subjecting people to 85 page application forms that make life very stressful and difficult is not consistent with welcoming the brightest to come and life and work here. I would have thought that was obvious from the article.

The prejudice against the Guardian in the posts above is self evident - that isn't an insult, its a comment on self declared prejudice against the Guardian. Pointing out a fact is not an insult, no matter how much you might want it to be to offset your own insults.

that article is the perfect example of how incompetent the bureaucratic machine in the uk is,it says nothing of how people born outside the uk will be treated post brexit.
i have a lot of sympathy for the woman after dealing with several government departments on behalf of my mother in law last year. i am fairly certain if i ever end up in jail it will be down having to deal with one incompetent bureaucrat too many.

It does say nothing about post brexit immigration, but given the direction of travel, do you think

a) things will get easier
b) things will get harder, put off some & make recruitment more difficult

You can say "we can't possibly know" if you want.

[sidicks]

///ajd said:

It does say nothing about post brexit immigration, but given the direction of travel, do you think

a) things will get easier
b) things will get harder, put off some & make recruitment more difficult

You can say "we can't possibly know" if you want.

We certainly manage to recruit from numerous countries outside of the EU.

[Tuna]

jjlynn27 said:

Ok

Not sure how going to 1992 is relevant but I'm sure it is. Maybe just get data for companies producing screws. Maybe they'll show a different trend.
I've picked aggregate data for all companies and 3year term to give an overview.
One question; any other event that you might think has the same influence on data as Brexit? I'd love to know which one if there is one.

I'm not sure what you think bankruptcy numbers demonstrate other than a change in business climate (that's neither a good or a bad thing, it's just a change). We could look at GDP instead and... Well whaddaya know...



http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp...

A lot of people have managed to come to terms with the idea that Brexit involves a change, and that no-one has yet engineered a universally positive change. However, If for every one job lost, we're employing two people, we should be embracing that change despite the individual sob stories.

I could just as easily have posted graphs of unemployment rates (consistently down) and labour rates (consistently up)... so perhaps you're cherry picking a tangential statistic to shore up a flakey argument?

Edited by Tuna on Saturday 8th April 20:45

[Murph7355]

jjlynn27 said:

Ok

Not sure how going to 1992 is relevant but I'm sure it is. Maybe just get data for companies producing screws. Maybe they'll show a different trend.
I've picked aggregate data for all companies and 3year term to give an overview.
One question; any other event that you might think has the same influence on data as Brexit? I'd love to know which one if there is one.

The chart is the same one as you posted only giving the longer time horizon. I didn't choose 1992. I chose the max available data, hence the chart going back to the mid-70s. I'd suggest (of course I would) that doing this shows less bias towards trying to link bankruptcies with recent events, even if not trying to link their cause with Brexit

wrt your last question, I guess Brexit is the only thing to have happened in the last 12mths that could possibly influence this data. That's why I was interested in looking at the details that underpinned it. I also wonder how many new companies were set up in those periods. Maybe bankruptcy rates correlate well with that....? Or myriad other things (bank lending policies (I personally don't think we've seen the last effects of 2008 yet), regulatory changes, tax changes, purchasing trends, divorce rates, the weather etc etc).

"Unfortunately" I was at an Easter Egg hunt with the kids. Far more productive and worthwhile in the log run than looking at charts and searching for the meaning of life, and the outcome was tastier

///ajd said:

So, going by the graph, Brexit is having a worse impact on businesses going under than during the 2008 GFC? Just great.

I assume most would concur there was causation against the GFC and the spike in 2008.

Come on Eyore, try harder. There has to be more doom and gloom than that

As wc98 notes, it does seem that the general trend of bankruptcy took off in the mid 70s after we remained in the EU and allowed it to run away with itself. It was at its highest thus far after Maastricht (even including the GFC). Maybe it will go higher still in the next few years.

I think what the chart is actually saying is that it's difficult to draw any conclusions from a single data set like this.

2008 looks like the GFC was at play. Incorporations also looked to be down at that point too, which I would think helps underscore it. But maybe not.

Incorporations recently have been on the up (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/incorporated-companies-in-the-uk-october-to-december-2016/incorporated-companies-in-the-uk-october-to-december-2016). So maybe that's a factor in recent bankruptcy rises (though they've not risen as sharply so maybe not).

It's a complicated old world out there and stats can only help make sense of it to an extent. If 650 economists can't decipher it, what chance the rest of us?

[Smiler.]

jjlynn27 said:

KrissKross said:

You have friends?

I teach, invent and submit R&D proposals for engineering and other technical projects. Times have never been so good.

Nothing you say on this forum is correct or true, your motivations for being here 24/7 telling lies and hassling people are beyond rationale. What is your agenda?

I usually like good Walter Mitty stories. This one is not so good. You are semi-literate at best.

Well at least you've dropped the "stalker" line.

Still fairly odious though, but top trolling. Whatever floats your boat I guess.

Next.